Tuberculosis - as it is.

Further to the Side effects - A request thread which we posted in May, one alpaca owner filmed the side effect of the skin test, which appeared within a couple of hours of the tuberculin antigen jab on an alpaca subsequently found to have generalised TB. The video shows this side effect.
This animal is gasping for breath, its lungs already destroyed by this disease, are now seriously compromised. This is not pretty.

This is the reality of tuberculosis - speeded up to 'end stage'.




Prior to the tuberculin antigen skin test jab, this alpaca appeared perfectly healthy. She was euthanased and found to have generalised TB. Dianne Summers tells us that she too had an alpaca react in this way:

"I had this happen on one of my animals and it is horrific when you experience it. He recovered fully the next day BUT as with all the others was found at postmortem to be riddled with TB".

NB: Dianne also explains that on the video, when the owner describes an 'injection' he means the tuberculin antigen jab, given on day 1 of the intradermal skin test.

Dianne's small group of 28 alpaca owners who have experienced this in their animals, report 22 instances. In four cases, the animal either died or was euthanased on welfare grounds before the reading of the skin test, 72 hours later. All the animals in this group had appeared, as we described the animal on the video clip, perfectly healthy prior to the jab. All of the animals who experienced this reaction were subsequently found at post mortem, to have generalised tuberculosis. Of the 22, only 3 had failed the skin test. Most passed - if they were alive for it to be read. Of the animals remaining, some subsequently failed a blood test, some died and others were volunteered to AHO after showing signs of TB.

We are grateful to the the Alpaca TB Support group, for this information, and to Di Summers for patiently collating it. Ms. Summers would like us to add, that the importance of monitoring alpacas after a skin test should not be underestimated.
She strongly recommends that owners isolate (with a companion) any animals showing this type of reaction - even if they appear to have recovered. The data gathered thus far would indicate that this 'reaction' to an introduction of tuberculin antigen in the skin test, is far more accurate than the test itself. All the animals affected have proved to be riddled with tuberculosis, regardless of the measured result of the test.



The effect of Tuberculosis on lungs tissue is illustrated in this pm slide of alpaca lungs. Very little of the lung remains able to function: the examining veterinary pathologist estimated only about 20 per cent.

If you remember - and we do - the RSPCA, in a considerable underestimate of its descriptive powers, described tuberculosis in badgers as 'A slight wheeziness' helpfully adding that:

"In the few badgers that do have symptoms, they are wheeziness and loss of weight and condition. There may be some skin ulceration."

So that's OK then? OK for badgers to die, drowning in their own body fluids, - as long as that death is unseen and its route progress airbrushed?

Anyone still under the impression that tuberculosis - or consumption as it used to be called in human beings - is a small inconvenient blip, or that any mammal suffering its end stages is not actually 'suffering', needs a reality check.

'Healthy wildlife - a prerequisite for healthy humans'.

The latest newsletter issued by Florida based 'One Health', opens with an observation on the interaction between human beings, animals and the environment.
It describes two basic types of 'intrusions':

The first involves the intrusion of new and expanding human communities into uninhabited areas utilized by free-ranging wildlife. The second type of intrusion involves the colonization and/or seasonal uses of these communities by free-ranging wildlife. Both situations will continue to increase in association with the increasing human population and landscape changes that displace wildlife from their historic habitat.

While pointing out that in general, this interaction is not a cause for concern, nevertheless, with some diseases caution is needed. The author points out that this is because:

"In general, there is an absence of any coordinated approach for disease detection and reporting for many of the species groups beyond that independently carried out by specific interests. When infectious disease emergence is detected, timely response often is impeded by jurisdictional and social issues that serve to advance disease spread and establishment."

He continues,

"The wildlife ingredients within this “mixing bowl” are the most difficult to address because, unlike human and domestic animal health programs, there is no formal wildlife health infrastructure that links regulatory authorities, responsibilities for wildlife wellbeing, and disease reporting with dedicated agency programs for combating disease occurring among various wildlife populations. Instead collaborative efforts involving an informal coalition of various agencies, and interests, may become involved in any specific event. For example, it is common for the public to submit impaired wildlife to private sector wildlife rehabilitators. These individuals and programs have varying capacity to determine if infectious disease is involved or to prevent disease spread within their facilities."

Here, the author was talking about the USA, but he could just as easily have referred to the UK and bTB. With Defra, VLA, AHOs and veterinary surgeons operating independently of each other, and selectively from doctors and the HPA.

Another quote points out that pathogens do not indulge in specific species preference, and might be able to circulate in and between different animal populations, including wildlife, and people. The conclusion, is that

... healthy wildlife is a prerequisite for healthy humans.

Appearing in this medico/veterinary/environmental publication One Health is an update on the badger 'management' initiative which we posted here. (See p.7 of the 'One Health' pdf)
Author Richard Gard, describes the operating protocol:

"Working in areas of ten square miles, the activity of the badgers, their territories and the location of unhealthy or ‘skanky’ badgers are assessed and their location matched on a map with the location of the cattle. The farm boundaries and land ownership cease to be important. Many farms have parcels of land separated from one another. The picture that this provides is extremely interesting to the farmers and their veterinary surgeons and offers a means of reducing the transfer of infection. The planned programme is to achieve Healthy Badgers and Healthy Cattle."

This initiative involves not only farmers, but their vets, maps of farms and detail of land where reactor cattle have grazed. An overlay of badger setts and territories is then applied to this data. Cattle testing clear, and the badgers associated with their grazing areas are seen as as important as the TB reactor areas.

This postmortem pic is of a hugely emaciated badger with tuberculous pleurisy. Did it 'suffer'? A veterinary pathologist wryly points out that "it would be naive to assume that it did not". It is also naive to assume that prior to a very painful death, this badger did not share its burden of disease.

Mr. Gard's article continues on the theme of protecting healthy badgers:

Our observations show that the herds in areas with healthy badgers do not have the problem of repeated bovine TB. Farmers do need healthy badgers and by participating in the work cattlemen have shown a willingness to co-operate in this, even if in nothing else. The badgers also need help to prevent the spread of TB within their population. In many TB hotspot areas healthy badgers are in decline.

Further information on this project are available from Mr. Gard. Contact details at www.agmed.org.uk/projects.htm.

Copies of a film showing the basics of this initiative, can be obtained from :
www.chrischapmanphotography.com at £4.99 inc postage.
.......................................................

Another bTB article in One Health, appearing just below that written by Richard Gard, explains the problems of wild boar as wildlife vectors of bTB in North America. The author warns of the folly of letting bTB establish in feral swine populations :

"At the strategic level, federal and state officials have called for the establishment of a coordinated, comprehensive feral swine control program. To succeed, such a program would likely require legislation and regulatory changes,
coupled with a sustained multidimensional effort involving public education, law enforcement, and feral swine population suppression.
Current efforts to control feral swine, which differ widely among states, are fragmented and only marginally effective.

He concludes with an observation that is is equally valid in the UK:
"

History has shown that once bovine TB becomes established in a wildlife population, it is very difficult to eradicate the disease. "

One could add that as the longer bTB is allowed to establish, the more difficult and expensive it becomes to eradicate, the sooner we start, the better.

Cost v. benefit ( or skewing the numbers)

Much is made of the alleged cost of culling badgers aka the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial. And as both we and the trial managers have said, this proved 'ridiculously expensive for what it delivered'.

The quoted figure for each square kilometre of the RBCT cage trapped areas was £3,800, which at x badgers per sq.km is nothing short of - crazy.
This figure first surfaced in the Defra publication, 'Cost Benefit analysis of Badger management as a component of Bovine TB control in England', as £3,799 and neatly rounded up, has passed unhindered into TB numbers.
An 'Opinion' piece in Farmers Guardian (sorry, no link) this week, has drawn our attention to yet another Defra anomaly surrounding this assumption.

Jim Webster has placed two documents side by side. The ISG tome "Bovine TB : The Scientific Evidence, A Science Base for a Sustainable Policy to control TB in Cattle .. blah, blah, blah..' And the 'Impact Assessment of Amendments to legislation to allow the Vaccination of Badgers by persons other than Veterinary Surgeons.'

In both processes, areas are mapped, setts identified and cage traps set. In the case of the now defunct Vaccination Trial, large mesh English cages with 2 x 2 inch mesh (capable of taking a shot via any aperture) (In the case of the WAG cull, cages were designed shorter, with smaller mesh from which anything daft enough to enter had to be translocated to be shot.)

The RBCT used the 2 x 2 inch large mesh cages and PQs told us of the wastage for this type of high profile operation thus:

"..... Management records indicate that - over 116 culling operations, across 19 trial areas, between December 1998 and 10th October 2003, during which 15,666 traps were sited - there were 8981 individual occasions where a trap was interfered with, and 1827 individual occasions when a trap was removed."
 (Ref: Hansard 8th Dec 2003 Col 218W [ 141971]

Thus almost 70 percent of traps proved useless - and a published a cost of £3,800 per sq.km . Leading to the conclusion that this method of badger culling, would too expensive.

But the Vaccination Trial, using exactly the same cages and protocol published a annual cost of £1,440 per sq. km. for trapping and vaccinating badgers.

As Jim says, to account for the £2,360 per sq.km difference, and as they were providing the vaccine, Defra must 'be paying way over the odds for the 0.22 hollow point ammunition'.

(Or have the illegal antics of the Animal Rights Activists during the RBCT cost the taxpayer £2,360 per sq.km ?)

On the other hand, the pen pushers advising Defra and the WAG Ministers, may be somewhat economic with their information on culling, over enthusiastic about vaccinating infected badgers - and a tad skewed confused with their numbers.

As Jim Webster says,

"At the very least Defra is going to have to go back and prepare these figures properly this time, and ideally under the supervision of competent professionals".

Quite.

Good news for m.bovis bacteria

It was announced this morning that the Welsh Assembly Government have lost their high court Appeal for a cull of badgers in the TB hotspot area of north Pembrokeshire.

Excellent news for m.bovis, the bacteria which cause TB, but seriously bad news for badgers, cattle, alpacas, cats, dogs, sheep, goats and possibly children, sharing their space and increasingly exposed to their spread.

UPDATE
High Court judgement is here.

Simplifications debunked.

During these last weeks, several publications have carried some very simplistic comments on past strategies to control bTB in this country. Mainly they are along the lines of this rant by superannuated pop star and newly qualified stargazer, Dr. Brian May.

We have aired this chart before but it is important to see (we think) how, as badger control was progressively sanitised over time, cattle TB increased. Indeed, we are now told that was 'expected'. Well nice of the vets and MAFF to alert cattle farmers to this wasn't it? Cattle testing did not change over this time, in fact it increased as more herds went under restriction and needed six tests annually instead of one, and more parishes came under the annual testing net. England has always had a strict 'lock down' of herds revealing reactors. But Dr. May, following the lead from the Badger Trust's various spokes-persons argues that 'history shows badger culling does not work as a method for controlling bTB'.

We would say that our chart, together with explanations for ongoing 'badger friendly' exceptions to culling, shows that it did. From the early 1970s, when stringent cattle only measures in Glos and Cornwall were failing, badger setts close to persistently affected farms were gassed. No exceptions. No 'closed season' so that a sow could infect her cubs, and no waiting around for permission from various focus groups.
The CVO reports from the mid 70's finally recorded a drop in cattle slaughterings.

The number of cattle slaughtered in GB during 1982 was 605.

The Clean Ring strategy (1982 - 86) used the information from the cattle tests and gassed badgers in rough circle up to 7km from the outbreak, until badgers postmortemed clear of TB. The change to cage traps during this period showed a slight increase in cattle TB but was still workable - although fraught with opportunities for interference such as the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial suffered. And the relocation of 'rescued' TB-takeaways didn't help disease control, but obviously gave the rescuers a warm glow.

In 1987, the number of cattle slaughtered in GB was 1183.

But in that year (1987) the most significant sanitisation occurred when the Interim Strategy reduced the land available to the WLUs for trapping to just 1km, and then only on land grazed by cattle. So if the sett was in an arable field, fenced woodland or on a neighbouring farm, the WLU couldn't touch it. Finally after £1 million bung from the PAL in 1997, gov'ment introduced the moratorium on Section 10 of the Protection of Badgers Act and MAFF / Defra refused to issue licenses to control disease.

In 1997 GB slaughtered 3760 cattle, and one year after the moratorium 6083.

Our chart uses MAFF / Defra cattle slaughter figures to log the difference these sanitising tweaks to badger control made to the disease in cattle. And Dr. May is mistaken if he genuinely believes that cattle testing and movement restrictions over this time were in any way loosened. They have progressively tightened as hotspots expanded.

And of course his (and the Badger Trust's) wide generalisations fall apart when the same TB testing of cattle in other countries which either do not support a wildlife reservoir of disease, or take parallel measures to control it, have cleared their cattle herds completely. The number of cattle found with TB by slaughterhouse inspections do not support this assumption of a huge hidden reservoir either.

Then there are Defra's carefully crafted spoligotype maps showing a consistent strain in one area. Not a hotchpotch which there would be, if cattle continually and over the decades this data has been collated, had moved TB around the country.

Dr. May is quoted in FG article as "citing the Independent Scientific Group’s (ISG) 2008 report and subsequent updates based on continuing monitoring of the cull areas as the scientific proof."

Now that is interesting. Just this week we hear from the lead ex ISG mathematical modeller that although her electronic abacus is showing sustained reductions in TB across all the proactive areas of the RBCT, her input data (details of which was not shouted loud enough for us to hear) indicate that although a badger cull reduces cattle TB, it would be too expensive. In fact Christl Donnelly went so far as to say it would take "12 years to recoup the cost". This was on Sky News (no link)
And with that we would agree. Culling badgers as done in the RBCT showed us exactly how not to do it. Launching into a highly infectious population for just 8 nights, using cage traps just once a year - if you were lucky. Ridiculous - as key bits of this EFRAcom submission from a trial manager explain:

5. Krebs had too many anomalies and weaknesses in the strategy for it to be successful. It took us four years to steer away from trapping setts that had been interfered with by Animal Rights Activists, to be able to trap badgers anywhere, in order to eliminate them. That was only one of a raft of operational problems we faced and had to endure.

6. Limited trapping - eight days per year with Krebbs - has little effect if carried out late in the year. The effect being that areas went almost two years without an effective cull.

7. The costs for a future culling policy must NOT be based on Krebs costings. [ snipped ]
Krebs was ridiculously expensive for what it delivered.

But as we have said before when we explored the original Krebs' protocol and compared to the the 'political science' John Bourne was sooooooooo proud to deliver, this exercise was designed to fail.

At its outset, both vets and trial managers say they were told by the diminutive professor, "this is a cattle disease, and will be treated as such". End of story.

But a change came in 2004, with a new trial manager appointed, protocol loosened (as explained above), traps laid on badger trails and more diseased ones were caught.

Thus the 2008 update report from Jenkins et al, after cattle tests caught up with this change, saw a reversal of Bourne's unique 'halo' effect - his reason for dismissing badger culling in the 2007 report - and that improvement in cattle TB both within the proactive areas and around them was intensified and sustained in Donnelly's publication of 2010.

Can you see their little brains ticking ? ... "Good grief, this wasn't meant to happen ...."

Cattle slaughterings have dropped a little in the first couple of months of this year, compared with 2009's figure of 36,322. And inevitably this is used as an excuse to say 'cattle measures must be working'. But the only 'cattle measure' which is newish, preMT, was introduced in 2006, and that would (should?) find more reactors, not less. So what is happening?

1. Across all ten RBCT proactive areas, incidence of cattle TB has dropped. And much to the chagrin of the ISG team, that drop is continuing.

2. We've had a lot of UV sunlight this spring, which is death for m.bovis deposited on pasture in a short period of time. Dull, wet weather extends its survival.

3. Imported Dutch tuberculin antigen was introduced for testing in June/July 2009. And the last time this happened, in 2006, the cattle slaughterings similarly dropped, with the CVO's report of that year explaining:

"The comparison of the tuberculin data, indicates to date that a proportion of VL animals [ ] differs significantly between Weybridge and Dutch PPD batches, with the Weybridge results having a smaller % of VLs.

The authors of the report say that there are two ways of interpreting this, but conclude that the following is most likely:

"The sensitivity of the combined Dutch PPDs is less, because of failing to pick up NVLs (animals which could be in the early stages of disease) which may or may not be confirmed with culture, to the same extent as Weybridge PPDs. This would result in under detection of cases, resulting in a transient decline in cases reported, despite there being no true decline in cases."

Thus the incidence of bTb may not be dropping significantly, but the incidence of its detection, especially in the early pre visible lesion stages, was.
If this is the case again, then we will see a greater number of lesioned reactors this summer and later.

4. Areas of the country with deep, entrenched TB problems are said to be exploring a management plan.

5. Defra tweaked the interpretation of IRs on severe on January 1st this year, with a new test chart, leading to less severe interpretation IRs slaughtered..

All will have had an impact on numbers of reactors.

And so to the latest money spinner. Biosecurity.

Despite Dr. May's and the Badger Trusts' outraged howls that bTB is all about cattle, Defra and others have spent an inordinate amount of effort printing guidelines of how to keep badgers away from cattle. Much is as useful as a wet paper bag, and is contradicted by research which Defra the taxpayer has funded.

The big one is trough height. Still the figure of 30 inches is quoted. Why? Defra know full well from Dr. Tim Roper's reserach that badgers can easily access cattle feed in troughs over 4 feet high. And at that height, our PQs kindly tell us, 'cattle cannot reach to eat'. Quite.

Our PQs also told us that while cattle will avoid faeces on their grazing ground, they cannot avoid the yard long trails of urine voided by incontinent wandering badgers.

And then there is electric fencing. Fence 'em out - that'll sort it. But in their evidence to EFRAcom, the Wildlife Trusts explained that badgers are the main predator of bees' and wasps' nests. So, if thousands of angry bees stinging their nose didn't put them off - what chance electric fences?


This was such a nest - which became badger MacDonalds. All that is left are two pieces of honeycomb - and some seriously angry occupants. So before anyone launches into this sort of advice, they had better be sure that it will work.




And they would do well to remember the words of the retired director of Woodchester Park, Dr. Chris Cheeseman, who, when asked how to keep badgers and cattle apart, replied "You can't, you get rid of your cattle".

Badger vaccine project scrapped

News today that the badger vaccine project, of which we have been less than enthusiastic in the areas and with the operating procedure proposed, is to be scrapped. One pilot will go ahead near Cheltenham.

Details here.

The silent killer

These videos (click left hand arrow to view) were kindly sent by one of the members of the Camelid TB Support Group. We have permission to use them. Their purpose is not to break your heart (and it will) but to show you how perfectly healthy a young alpaca can look (this cria was under a year old) - and yet be riddled with TB having PASSED a skin test.

The first clip was taken an hour before he was put down. He was in his pen - alone, waiting to be culled. He wasn't showing ANY signs of ANY illness let alone TB. He had passed the skin test twice, but failed the blood test. He is eating, inquisitive, bright and has no weight loss. No outward signs at all.



This alpaca was culled one hour after the footage was taken. He had TB lesions throughout his entire organs. This is the silent killer known as TB. Alpaca owners cannot rely on the skin test alone to detect TB infected animals. They cannot trade with any confidence when out of restriction having only used the skin test.

Advice from alpaca vet, Gina Bromage is to not consider selling, showing or moving alpacas around for a minimum of one year (possibly longer) - on the back of a negative skin test. As the video clip clearly shows , a negative skin test in alpacas does not mean a lot and stresses the importance of the blood tests and the current research into the gamma interferon validation project and the hope of a reliable ante-mortem TB test.

(This posting from Dianne Summers, who runs the Camelid TB Support Group)

Biocsecurity cash snatch ?

... and it is likely to be ours.
We have been uneasy for several months now with the recurring mention of 'bio-security' (whatever that might mean in the context of bTB ) in the same breath as tabular compulsory purchase monies, or cross compliance with the SFP.

Our co-editor gave his unique overview of Defra's 'fence 'em out' big idea, in a previous post. But like a bad smell, it keeps recurring. In fact researchers have had taxpayer's cash to further line their pockets in a couple of reports, produced for Defra where they explore 'bio-security' in no particular depth, and little background certainty that their 'big ideas' will yield anything at all.

Farmers deserve better. But at the moment it looks as if, once again, we may be led up a garden path on a journey based more on hope than experience.

In January, we posted the job opportunity advertised by the NFU, paid for with European Union UK taxpayers' cash. This team has now been interviewed and appointed and can be contacted on email to info@southwest-tbadvice.co.uk and a new website ( under construction) at www.southwest-tbadvice.co.uk

While many farmers will welcome dedicated support as described in the flyer leaflet from the SW TB Advisory service, most of us would prefer it was not necessary. And some of us, seeing that one part of the package involves 'Disease Risk management' are wondering how long it will be before such ideas as explained in Defra's advice booklet (Number 10) become part of compulsory action with cash penalties for alleged breaches?

Defra have abandoned their single booklet which was given to farmers at the time of a TB breakdown, in favour of 15 separate leaflets, heavy on pictures but short on information. Or information of any value. If this (or the SW TB Advisory Service's) advice is followed, then farmers are entitled to expect results. And from what we have seen of the basic list, that will not happen.

A decade ago, 'keep a closed herd' was the mantra. That didn't work for some of our contributers and now all manner of bolt-ons have appeared in the form of 'shared slurry spreaders' and access. (Our contributers have neither but still have TB) And Defra are still banging on about feed troughs 'at least 75cm ( that's 30 inches in old money) off the ground'. This despite having added to Prof. Tim Roper's pension pot, by commissioning research in 2001 which saw badgers easily accessing troughs at 43 inches. They didn't have to stand on each others shoulders either. And it was the lightweight ones with overgrown claws, which then hooked these over the edge of the trough, then swung up and in. Simple. PQs confirmed this research, adding the proviso that "at this height, cattle would not be able to access". Quite.

What we did like about Defra's No 10 leaflet entitled 'Dealing with TB in your Herd', was the pretty pictures of badgers all over it - although why not pics like this we really cannot imagine. The leaflet tells us (so it must be true):

"Badgers present a particular challenge to all cattle farmers who want to keep their herd bovine TB free"

Strictly speaking that is not true. Defra's intransigence and decades of prevarication over what action to direct at TB infected badgers is the challenge cattle farmers face. But we digress. The blurb continues:

"Badgers in particular, suffer from TB and are able to transmit the disease to cattle causing a breakdown in a herd that will result in movement restrictions and slaughter of affected cattle".

Yes. Of that we are only too well aware. But what are Defra going to do about it as these animals have acquired cult status and their ancestral homes a Grade 1 listing?

"This leaflet provides some guidance on what you can do to reduce the risk of transmission to your cattle".

Troughs at 30 inches? Not according to that Defra funded film.
Sheeted gates 4 inches off the ground? Nope, they can slither under those.
And whaddya do about the grass? That isn't mentioned.
Oh, and for goodness sake don't leave a ladder about.
Seen in a Kitchen Garden magazine this month, the following gem as an answer to a gardener wanting to harvest carrots for himself and seeking advice on how to exclude vermin badgers:

"I do know of an allotment holder who built a 6 foot high fence around his land to protect his sweetcorn, with access via a ladder which he left at one side for him to get into the enclosure"

You know what's coming next, don't you?

"He left the ladder up against the fence one night, and the badgers got in."

We reiterate what we said in the posting which advertised the SW Advisory team jobs.

Someones idea of 'bio-security' may have a profound effect on any compensation monies due, however unproven, ineffective, impractical or costly such measures may be.

We are also reminded of the words spoken at least twice in our hearing, by the former chief at Woodchester Park's Badger Heaven, Dr. Chris Cheeseman. When asked how to keep badgers and cattle apart, his reply was unequivocal:

"You can't. You get rid of your cattle".

Cattle farmers, you have been warned.

The maiden speech of the new MP for Totnes, Dr. Sarah Wollaston, contained the following observation.

In the South Hams, we also have some of the most spectacular countryside, but I have to inform Members that that countryside is in crisis. We are fast losing our sustainability as more and more dairy farms in particular go out of business because of the problems of bovine tuberculosis. Devon is, in fact, at the very heart of the bovine TB epidemic.

As a doctor, I have to tell Members that we cannot treat infected badgers by vaccination. Vaccination can only hope to prevent the disease in unaffected individuals.

I have been teaching junior doctors evidence-based medicine for 11 years, and I can say that one of the problems we face is that the randomised badger culling trial has for years wrongly been used to justify a policy of inaction.

Unless we do something about bovine TB, more and more of our farmers will go out of business. We need to recognise the effect on them and their families, and the very real distress bovine TB causes them.

With that we would agree. Vaccinating endemically infected badgers with a BCG type jab, and that only for a couple of nights and only 3 hours daylight per night trapping, is about as daft as it gets. On the other hand, is has been suggested that the effect of this extra stress on an infected (or infectious) badger, plus a top up BCG jab, may cause an anaphylactic type reaction, seen in alpacas, which could lead to death.

Other farmers have told us that they only signed up for the proposed Vaccine Deployment Project, in the hope of getting their land surveyed early, ahead of any targetted cull. If that was implied by Defra or Fera at the VDP launch meetings, it is a pretty shoddy way to deliver their next prevarication 'Big Idea', piggy backing a £20million scam onto hope value.

'Side effects' after the skin test - a request

The intradermal skin test, universally used to screen cattle for exposure to bTB, is also used when a breakdown has occurred on goats, sheep and camelids.

We are hearing of increasing numbers of whole body 'reactions' to skin test jabs in alpacas.

In another life, we were taught that the mantra of "clinical disease + an introduced top up dose" - in the form of vaccination, or possibly a screening jab? - meant death. In almost 40 years of first hand experience of the test used on cattle, we have never seen a reaction such as this. But talking to cattle farmers who were around during the eradication years of the early 1960's, and who remembered the effect of the skin test on some clinically infected cattle, it could happen.

We have received the following request for further information on these 'reactions' from the Cornwall Alpaca Group's welfare liaison officer, and organiser of the Alpaca TB Support Group, Dianne Summers, which we are happy to post:

'REACTIONS' FOLLOWING THE SKIN TESTING OF ALPACAS.

Members of the Alpaca TB support group who have kindly forwarded details of their tests, losses and post mortem results to me for filing, have also mentioned some extreme reactions in their animals, following the skin test jabs.

One of my own animals, (Cloud) also had this reaction. In Cloud’s case, it appeared within an hour of the test, (after my AHO had left) and left him gasping for breath, with legs extended, distressed and with an increased heartbeat. Although his ‘reaction’ had gone within a couple of days, Cloud was subsequently found to have generalised TB at postmortem.

Within our small support group of 28 alpaca owners, 22 animals have suffered a similar reaction. In three cases, the animals have died before the reading of the test. Others have been euthanased on welfare grounds. Some appeared to recover, but a positive skin test and/or blood test has meant they have been culled and found to have clinical TB at postmortem, some in several organs of their bodies.

A retired veterinary scientist, who attended an Alpaca TB Awareness Roadshow and is on my mailing list for updates of our support group, has expressed interest in this 'side effects' data which the group have provided. Although he has been worked for almost 40 years with bTB in cattle (and badgers), the extreme reaction to the skin test which some of our alpacas have had, is something he has not experienced before.

He is keen to document it and offer his findings to the veterinary / scientific press. To do this he needs to speak directly to the owners (or their vets) of animals in which this reaction has been seen. In papers of this sort, owner's anonymity is completely protected, with the animal in question given a label 'a' or 'b', or numbered.

It is not lumps or bumps he is looking for. It is this violent (and sometimes fatal) whole body type reaction to the skin test, which is of interest. This may happen within the first minutes (or hours) of the jab and in my case (Cloud) could not have been passed off as ‘stress’. The interest of the veterinary professionals who have requested information from owners, is driven by concern for the welfare of our alpacas. As this reaction is not routinely seen in cattle, it is possible that it is a violently ‘positive’ reaction of alpacas who may have clinical TB (as the majority of this 'side effect' group have proved to have) when given the screening test of a bTB ppd antigen jab.

If any alpaca owner has experienced this ‘side effect’ of the skin test on any of their animals, and would be prepared to contribute this experience to the author of the proposed veterinary paper, could they please contact me on the numbers below.

Dianne Summers
Camelid TB Support Group
01209 822422
07949511316
summersdianne@yahoo.com

Amongst the members of the TB support group, 28 alpaca owners have reported that 22 of their animals suffered this type of reaction a short time after receiving the intradermal TB skin test. In some animals, the reaction eventually proved fatal. Others were euthanased ahead of an elective cull, after a positive reaction to the test, on welfare grounds.

For the welfare of alpacas, we think it is very important to investigate the scale of this 'reaction', when the intradermal TB screening test is offered to animals which may be already clinically infected.

A day is a long time in politics....

....and a week even longer. Before the election, both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats committed to a targeted cull of badgers to end this crazy one sided polemic of slaughtering sentinel cattle, while ignoring the cause of up 90 percent of their problems.

But on Tuesday 18th May, Caroline Spelman, newly appointed Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in an interview with Farmers Guardian political editor, Alistair Driver, was less than enthusiastic about honouring this manifesto pledge.

She indicated that there was no guarantee the policy would be delivered, despite a pre-election Tory pledge to implement a badger cull if they were elected.
Asked if the Tory pledge on a badger cull still held, Ms Spelman said only that she had ‘not closed down any options’. Mrs Spelman was clear she wanted make up her own mind on the issue and was prepared to take her time in order to develop a ‘science-led policy’.

Mrs. Spelman said she wanted to monitor the effectiveness of the Welsh pilot badger cull, due to start in north Pembrokeshire this month, before deciding whether to pursue the policy in England.

(And how long is that lukewarm prevarication going to take, one may ask? The Honourable Lady's predecessor was going to 'await for the outcome of the Irish 4 County trial'. And when it successfully reported, he ignored it.)

“In all areas, I must take my time and be properly briefed,” she said, adding that the problem had got much worse since she was last involved in the agricultural industry more than a decade ago. “The fact that the disease is now much more widely penetrated over a much wider geographical area makes the decision more difficult and more complex. I believe in evidence-led policy making and I think we should wait to see how the Welsh get on,” she said.

But in curious twist to this comment (made by Mrs. Spelman on Tuesday 18th May) today, 20th May a press release was issued by her office which appeared less reticent. The Guardian has the strapline, "English Badgers set for Targeted culls" and describes how:

The new coalition agreement released by Downing Street today says: "As part of a package of measures, we will introduce a carefully managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas with high and persistent levels of bovine tuberculosis."

While Valerie Elliot of The Times seems to have cut and pasted a different offering from Caroline Spelman's department. Carrying the strapline "Minister blocks cull of badgers in bovine TB hotspots", The Times continues:

Plans for an emergency cull of badgers in hotspots of bovine TB are to be delayed while Caroline Spelman, the Rural Affairs Secretary, reviews the scientific evidence. Ministers will also await the outcome of a pilot cull in West Wales before embarking on such a policy in England.

The decision will disappoint many farmers, especially those in areas with highest incidence of the disease, such as the South West. A further review is surprising because the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats supported an emergency cull of badgers during the election campaign.

But while readers of The Times were digesting that with their organic muesli, the Minister of State, Jim Paice MP., speaking on the opening day of the Devon County show confirmed his commitment to a targeted cull of badgers in TB hotspots.

A cull of badgers is to be introduced in Devon and Cornwall to combat bovine tuberculosis (TB) in cattle. Farming Minister Jim Paice confirmed the news at the Devon County Show. The government says it is examining how best to roll out the policy, with a pilot vaccination scheme due to start across England this month.

So dear readers, make of that what you will. Wriggle room? More prevarication? More dead cattle - and alpacas, cats, dogs, sheep, pigs, goats and companion mammals?

As manifestos are torn up and our newly self-appointed Siamese Twins bulldoze their ideas through and over their party faithful, the only sure thing about politics is that when a politician's lips are moving - he's lying..

Shrinking halos ?

During the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial's 8 night, very infrequent hit-and-run excursions into TB infected badger populations, the ISG's computer models logged an increase in cattle TB in the areas surrounding the 'clearance' zones. These 'halos' were offered as an argument for doing nothing, as they had appeared to make matters worse for cattle herds surrounding culled areas.

The fact that in previous decades of GB's progressively sanitised badger removals, no such 'halos' appeared around areas (large or small) which were culled out adequately, seems to have escaped the great and the good of the ISG. As did the change in RBCT protocol after the first 4/5 years of chaos, which meant that they did actually achieve some sort of a clearance as we reported here.

This was reflected in the Jenkins paper, published in 2008 which we discussed here. The ISG team requested more government cash work, and they were able to continue to log cattle breakdown data from the RBCT areas for a longer period of time. The team of scientists and statisticians undertaking the follow-up work to the RBCT trial have published again updating data on the impacts of cattle TB incidence of repeated badger culling

This additional data has been further analysed as a comment on a scientific website by one of the team, Prof. Christl Donnelly.

Since publication of the paper “The duration of the effects of repeated widespread badger culling on cattle TB following the cessation of culling”, (see abstract here) an additional six months of cattle testing data have become available. These allowed analyses to be updated.

In the time period from one year after the last proactive cull to 31 January 2010 (the post-trial period), the incidence of confirmed breakdowns in the proactive culling areas was 37.0% lower (95% CI: 25.3% to 46.8% lower) than in survey-only areas and in areas up to 2km outside proactive trial areas was 3.6% lower (95% CI: 29.0% lower to 31.0% higher) than outside survey-only areas.

"Exploratory analyses stratified by 6-month periods (Table 1) suggested, unexpectedly, that the beneficial effects observed within trial areas in the first year post-trial, have reappeared in the last 6-month period analysed (37 to 42 months post-trial)."

"These latest results are consistent with a constant benefit of proactive culling continuing through this latest period. However, the effects observed outside trial areas are consistent with no ongoing effects of proactive culling in these areas."

"There is no clear explanation for the unexpected pattern observed within trial areas based on these latest data. (We examined parish test intervals and they are very similar in and around proactive and survey-only trial areas.) Continued monitoring is necessary to quantify any further temporal changes in the effects."

This updated data shows that in the period starting one year after culling stopped up until 31 January 2010 the incidence of confirmed breakdowns in the proactive culling areas was 37% lower than survey only areas (areas which were surveyed but not culled). Furthermore in the areas adjoining the culled area the incidence was 3.6% lower. This means that any initial perturbation effect has been quickly overturned and there is now a lower than previous incidence in these areas.

So, a begging bowl extended for 'more monitoring' ? - that was to be expected.
But no halos? And the excuse for doing nothing goes where, exactly?

Doubling up

We have received the following update from the Alpaca TB Support Group. This small number of owners and breeders (about 28 herds) are in contact with each other for support and advice, when they find they have a TB casualty among their animals. The number of deaths from bTB which they have reported within the group, is a mere snapshot of camelid deaths from TB in the country, but even among this group, casualties have almost doubled from last year.

Through their enquiries, the group have learnt that the 'official' camelid TB figures, produced occasionally by Defra and updated quarterly (although we note that this chart has been the same for six months ) refer only to samples submitted to VLA. So if an animal dies on farm, is postmortemed on farm, but is part of a larger or ongoing TB breakdown, then culture samples are not submitted. And thus it drops off the 'official' statistics radar.

Which would go some way to explaining why the Defra figures are (still) showing 68 confirmed TB casualties for 2009, with 120 samples submitted, while the members of the TB support group have recorded 144 deaths. All positively confirmed by veterinary post mortems.

Up to Dec 31st 2009 those in contact with the TB support group lost 144 alpacas/llamas [with] confirmed TB. This works out roughly 12 a month. From that 144 we had 12 skin test positives 7 of which were from one herd.

In the first 4 months of 2010 From 1st Jan - 30th April 2010 members in contact with the TB support group have lost 94 alpacas.

.... which works out to over 23 animals per month - and almost double the incidence of 2009.

Statistics for cattle are more robust, as BCMS and CTS are involved and individual animals are logged. But we understand that due to financial pressures, (and numbers?) as with camelids, samples consigned to VLA for TB strain cultures or 'spoligotyping' are limited to the first couple of an ongoing breakdown.

For over forty years, the results of cattle casualties and RTAs or badger removals, have been painstakingly logged and mapped by VLA and our posting gives some results of the blocks of GB countryside where an 'environmental' strain of TB is circulating between sentinel tested, slaughtered cattle and free ranging, endemically infected badgers - and available to any other mammal who happens to wander by. Including highly susceptible alpacas.

From a comment on the Alpaca blog, it would appear that although TB can be spread between infected imported herd members, only 6 herds could nail their outbreaks positively to this source. For the others TB had come from a wildlife source, whose name Defra are not keen to mention.

Welsh pilot area begins

Today, May 1st, the Welsh bTB eradication area pilot begins.
This was kick started with clearance of the pilot badger cull from the Bern Convention which yesterday decided to squash a complaint brought by the Badger Trust.

"The Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones has welcomed the decision by the Bureau to the Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats - also known as the Bern Convention - not to continue with a complaint brought by the Badger Trust with regard to the planned cull of badgers in west Wales."

In a meeting in Strasbourg on 29th March 2010, the Bureau, which takes administrative and organisational decisions between meetings of the Standing Committee, decided to remove the complaint from its complaints list.
Elin Jones said:

“This is confirmation that the Bureau agrees with our view that the provisions of the Bern Convention have been fully respected in considering the proposed badger cull. “

“We will continue with the preparations in the pilot area. Bovine TB is one of the biggest problems facing cattle farmers across Wales, and we have to tackle all sources of the disease. We will face serious consequences if we do not.”

This decision comes hard on the heels of a recent Judicial Review in the High Court, where the Welsh Assembly Government successfully defended its decision to implement a limited badger cull in west Wales.

At the same time, cattle measures in Wales will be tightened up to reflect 'severe interpretation' protocol on all tests. Farmers Guardian gives the following details:

* Herds to be tested every six months.

* All breakdowns, whether or not ‘confirmed’ by post-mortem, will require two clear 60 day tests, to release movement restrictions.

* Breakdowns will also be subject to tracing which will generate additional testing for associated cattle herds. (We assume this means 'all' breakdowns, as confirmed ones generate traces at present? - ed)

* There will also be restrictions on cattle movements within and outside the area.

* All British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) linkages and Sole Occupancy Authorities (SOAs) between holdings inside and outside the pilot area are being cancelled, requiring farmers to report all movements to BCMS and comply with pre-movement testing requirements.

* Farmers have also received visits from their private vets to discuss bio-security arrangements on their farms to reduce risk of TB getting into and spreading in their herds.

“The bovine TB eradication programme is a long-term project will last for five years and includes a range of measures designed to restrict and ultimately eradicate TB in cattle,” said Chief Veterinary Officer for Wales, Dr. Christianne Glossop “In the pilot area, local vets have been working with farmers since before Christmas to improve bio-security on farms. The additional measures are a vital element of the programme.

“We know that cattle and badgers are the main sources of the disease and that, if we want to achieve our aim of eradicating bovine TB, we have to tackle the disease in both species." said Dr. Glossop.

With that we would agree, and we wish them luck.

But if they get the badger part wrong then as has been tried before, no amount of nailing cattle to the floor, will make the slightest difference to TB incidence, which is already spilling over into other mammals both in the Principality and England.

Northern BAS shows to restrict entries.

Below are new biosecurity conditions which will apply to entries to the following two northern shows for alpacas. This is follow up post to our posting below, where the new BAS bio security guidelines were given an airing at Bristol.

The Northumberland show, to be held on 31st May, and the Border Union show, scheduled for July 30 - 31st at Kelso, have published the following conditions of entry:

Entries at both these shows are to be restricted on a geographical basis. This has been agreed by the BAS Board for 2010 only. The situation will be reviewed in 2011.

For any alpaca owners who are unaware of their parish testing interval, all areas west of Defra's maginot line (which is roughly from North Staffordshire, dropping south to Dorset, and coloured red on the map), are on annual testing of their cattle herds. The buffer zone to the east of this line and coloured orange, is on two year testing. The line has already moved further east than this illustration shows.


Full details are available on the website (www.bas-uk.com) under Shows & Events/Programmes.


The restrictions are as follows:

Northumberland

In order to instill confidence in both alpaca and other livestock exhibitors, entries will only be accepted for animals from 3- & 4-year cattle bTB testing areas. Please check your Parish Testing Interval on the Animal Health website before making your entry and include your holding number with your entry fees.
A reduction in the number of entries has been necessary to enable a 3-metre gap between breeders. Spit barriers and comprehensive biosecurity procedures will be in place, as per BAS recommendations.

And over the border to Scotland, which has recently been granted TB-free status,

Kelso

By order of the Border Union Show Committee, because of Scotland's TB-Free status, entries from England are only open to animals from 3- & 4-year cattle bTB testing areas. Please check your Parish Testing Interval on the Animal Health website.
Full postcodes and Holding numbers of origin are mandatory. Any herd that has been in contact with animals from a 1- or 2-year testing area within the 6 months prior to the show will not be eligible to enter.

More details can be found on the BAS website and local AHOs will confirm the parish testing interval of your holding.

© 2006 British Alpaca Society Ltd www.bas-uk.com

Biosecurity - camelids

The BAS (British Alpaca Society) is well aware after a series of 'TB Awareness' roadshows that when TB hits an alpaca herd, it is more than capable of inter herd spread. The society recently issued Bio security guidelines to all its members. These included the following advice which was designed to minimise contact with other alpacas:

* Herd pens should be separated three metres apart, if possible, with animals penned by county. If the Show Organiser deems it necessary, animals that have been bTB tested should be penned together and kept separate from those herds that have not been tested.

* There should be no collecting ring; the alpacas should enter and exit the show ring via single one-way circular routes.

* The show ring should be as large as possible to allow for the maximum separation of show animals.

* There should be no fans of any type for reasons of bio security and electrical safety

* Alpacas should only be permitted to leave their designated pens to enter the show ring for judging or exiting the showground. There should be no 'airing of the fleece' in outside areas.

Hard on the heels of this most sensible list, came an alpaca show in the SW, from where this pic was snapped. Pens 3m apart to prevent inter herd contact? No fans?
(see later Contributor Update for more on this)

We have given alpacas a considerable airing on this site, as unfortunately for them, they are particularly susceptible to tuberculosis. They also have the ability to become infectious very quickly, to spread the disease between themselves and the potential to transmit to TB to their owners or other mammals.

Unfortunately, even squeezed down to practically zero, the intradermal skin test is not a good indicator of TB exposure in alpacas, and Defra have recently pulled the financial rug on one promising supplementary blood test. The reason given for this was 'lack of funding'. But the cynical amongst us would point out that the "don't look, won't find" culture thrives in the upper echelons of Defra. Particularly as we understand that the BAS has offered to underwrite the costs of validating blood tests on behalf of their members. In a different pot, and slightly off topic, Defra are sitting on £420 million (yes that is correct - lots of noughts) underspend after over estimating take up on some Environmental schemes, and last week's national media reported the department spent (sorry - no link) £7000 per week (£3.5 million in the year) moving furniture around its many departments.

We do not overestimate the importance of clearing reservoirs of TB - wherever they may be. That is the ethos of the site. So to see irresponsibility on the part of some camelid owners is - disappointing. Particularly as from a very small section of owners who have banded together to form a TB support group, come the news of 144 confirmed alpaca deaths from TB during 2009. The group now report a doubling of TB incidence to 68 in the first three months of 2010.

We look forward to seeing these figures accurately reflected on Defra's 'Other species' TB stats, in due course.

This picture is of an alpaca trachea, heavily infected with open TB lesions right up to his throat. He had passed a couple of skin tests.

When questioned about infectivity of this animal: "would he have been infectious when he coughed or spat?" .....



... veterinary advice was that he was "grossly infectious" with every breath he exhaled.

And with no outward symptoms of disease, and having passed skin tests, this animal could have been amongst those in the pens, pictured above.
Right next to other groups - no 3m gap - and with his exhaled air having the benefit of electronic spread.

There are times when words really do fail us.

CONTRIBUTOR UPDATE:

We have had contact from several alpaca owners who attended the SW show. These are some of their comments on the biosecurity arrangements in evidence.
One breeder was 'interested to see how the new organiser would implement the BAS biosecurity guidelines', and being a BAS supported show, had expected to see efforts made to protect alpacas from disease.

What a disgrace. Just about every guideline was breached.
* There was nowhere near 3m between pens.
* Most pens had fans running, some as many as 3 fans per pen.
* There was a holding area, and alpacas were nose to nose.
* People were walking their alpacas around airing them outside...
* and allowing them to kiss noses with other alpacas.

This comment noted that there was 'a disinfectant pad to walk over'. That was the only measure he could see. And this breeder concluded that it would be unwise to bring his animals to a show.

A second breeder was equally unimpressed, commenting that on his arrival:

* We saw people walking their alpacas outside.
* We could have walked in without being challenged..
* and there were no disinfectant footbaths or pads at the front of the building.
* There was nobody to ensure that animals were walked over pads either on their way to the show ring.
*Animals were kept separated by one pen in the showhalls but this would be ineffective as they were in close proximity to each other in other areas..

The comment continued on the use of fans:

We were shocked at just how many fans there were. We counted at least 11 before we gave up and there were only 23 breeders in attendance; we have made a note of exactly who was using fans.

This writer of this communication questioned whether the organisers of this show had received the BAS Guidelines. And he ended with the comment on this apparent lack of biosecurity awareness:

This is particularly horrifying as it was the South West Show and we all are now aware that this is the area of the country at greatest risk from TB"

Tie a yellow ribbon?

The BVA (British Veterinary Association) have issued a statement supporting the High Court decision, that the proposed cull of infected badgers in Wales, is lawful.

Commenting on the verdict, Professor Bill Reilly, President of the British Veterinary Association, said:

“The BVA and BCVA welcome the outcome of the Judicial Review which means that the Welsh Assembly Government’s important work to control and eradicate bovine tuberculosis can go ahead.

John Blackwell, Senior Vice President of the British Cattle Veterinary Association, (BCVA) added:

“We have strongly supported the Welsh Assembly Government’s TB Eradication Order because it combines strong measures to tackle the disease in both cattle and wildlife. We are therefore pleased that the court has declared the Order is lawful.

“We will be watching the outcomes of the measures in Wales under the Order closely and hope that, if successful, these measures will be replicated in other areas of the UK.”

And therein lies the problem, as it was with the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial. Just how is this exercise going to be carried out and will it be 'successful' - as in reducing sentinel tested cattle slaughter and the opportunity for disease spillback into other mammals?

Will it be quiet, clean, thorough and anonymous? Will experienced operatives be allowed input to decision making, so that problems are tackled before they disrupt the operation? Or, like the bureaucratic, intermittent, incomplete and highly visible RBCT, will it actually achieve it's aim and just scatter a highly infectious population of badgers?

Several contributers to this site had the serious misfortune to be included in the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial triplets. Some in the Proactive areas, one in the Reactive. Their experiences were the same. Intermittent hit-and-run highly publicised visits led to trap interference and trespass by 'activists' hell bent on protecting their chosen species, no matter what the cost to others. And this especially in the first four years of so-called 'culling'. We do not label this farce 'badger disersal' for nothing.

Our bitter experiences were supported in a submission to EFRAcom in 2006, by one of thetrial managers who said:

. * Krebs had too many anomalies and weaknesses in the strategy for it to be successful. It took us four years to steer away from trapping setts that had been interfered with by Animal Rights Activists, to be able to trap badgers anywhere, in order to eliminate them. That was only one of a raft of operational problems we faced and had to endure.

* Limited trapping - eight days per year with Krebbs - has little effect if carried out late in the year. The effect being that areas went almost two years without an effective cull. (In some cases three, or not at all - ed)

* The costs for a future culling policy must NOT be based on Krebs costings. [ snipped ]
Krebs was ridiculously expensive for what it delivered.

So what of the Welsh effort? Who is the trial manager? Will he listen to his operatives and has he learned anything at all from what went so wrong with the English version, described so eloquently in the submission above?

Cage trapping individual badgers is arguably the most expensive method of dispatching an infected group. So have the Welsh commandeered all those English badger cages (or what's left of them) lurking somewhere at the taxpayer's expense, or have they bought their own? The English ones, in use since the mid 1980s have been developed over time, to ensure that the mesh gauge encourages - as much as any cagetrap can - entry? We are told that a small mesh will not get many volunteers, and that in past trials, 5cm square, or the old 2 x 2 inch was about right.

This also allowed dispatch of the occupant without too much fuss. Any smaller mesh meant entry was limited but more important, the barrel of the rifle or pistol couldn't make entry. This would mean that the occupant had to be translocated into another cage before dispatch. A procedure which is neither fast, easy, or desirable and has meant escapees on many occasions.

The pistols or rifles used in the English badger culling operations were a) silenced and b) used hollow nosed shells for accurate and instant kill with no ricochet. (Too powerful a rifle using supersonic shells, as used in free running target running in open country, runs the risk of operator or onlooker injury in a confined area.)

The RBCT publicised their locations on websites. And sympathisers within Defra offices ensured that WLU operatives ran the gauntlet of abuse and physical attack on a daily basis. The vehicles used in the early days of the trial were like pink elephants, with white Crown tax discs, sparkling clean and their registration numbers noted. Have the Welsh learnt from this and will they protect their operatives? Or will bright shiny suits and noisy cloned vehicles be the order or the day?

We have reported many times the wastage of man hours and trap opportunities which resulted from this 'open house' on the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial. Hansard confirms that up to 2003, 5 years into the English trial, almost 70% of traps set were either 'interfered with' or had 'disappeared'. Have the Welsh Assembly taken on board this opportunity for disruption, or like the New Zealanders, do they plan to hang yellow ribbons from trees surrounding the trap areas?

In New Zealand, the aerial drops of poison pellets to clear out infected colonies of bush possums over a large area requires public notification so that anyone approaching an area thus baited, can keep a tight hold on dog, child or grandma. Cage traps laid one night and visited within hours are a different kettle of fish.

We make these points with a clear message to our Welsh colleagues. Don't let bureaucratic intransigence or inappropriate operating protocol screw this up.

As John blackwell of the BCVA said:

“We will be watching the outcomes of the measures in Wales under the Order closely and hope that, if successful, these measures will be replicated in other areas of the UK".

Carried out correctly, culling of groups of TB infected badgers works quickly. Get it wrong and they have the ability and opportunity to spread the disease far and wide.

The Welsh have it

.. and the English do not, as we pointed out in this posting.

TB eradication in the round, will go ahead in Wales.
BBC Wales and Farmers Guardian have the story.

While in England, we just kill cattle. And now alpacas. And cats. And dogs. And ...

That £1 million bung from PAL was well spent then? Good value?
Defra have overseen the slaughter of 255,963 cattle since it was paid, and the law of the land tied in knots by a backdoor moratorium on the clearing of tuberculosis from wildlife sources, whose name they dare not speak.. A moratorium which this government have no intention of repealing. In fact Jim Fitzpatrick said in the House of Commons as recently as April 8th., that although "The key issue with bovine Tuberculosis (bTB) in wildlife is when the disease is transmitted to livestock," the Government's policy is that

"no licences will be issued for culling badgers for the purpose of preventing the spread of bTB in cattle, although we remain open to the possibility of revisiting this policy under exceptional circumstances, or if new scientific evidence were to become available."

We have the best administration money can buy.

More on how to make a horlicks ...

We have not been terribly enthusiastic about Defra's attempts to control badger-TB in the recent past. And to be fair, Defra have not given us any reason to be enthusiastic. After several years of local control, overseen by experienced Wildlife teams answerable to local AH veterinary staff, the whole thing went pear shaped during the RBCT Badger Dispersal Trial.

Political scientists organised - or not - 8 night-hit-and run visits in well advertised locations. FMD interrupted play for a year, and all in all, with trashed traps, spring lay offs and pregnant sows released, it could be considered a bonus to have caught anything at all, at least for the first four years.

Defra's Badger Vaccine Deployment Project appears to be heading in a similar, or even more hazy direction, as we pointed out in this post.
And this week, most of our points were confirmed in Farmers Guardian, with a piece headed 'ill thought out, and expensive'.

More snippets on this expensive charade arrived in a comment today. We cannot verify these, but from past (bitter) experience, they do sound just about right. The comment from the Glos. area points out that some of the badger setts to be targeted on his patch are enormous. And after talking with potential contractors, they confirm that they are instructed to limit the trapping to:

* 3 hours of daylight only.

* they must visit each sett twice, once to check traps and secondly to return with vaccine - however far away vehicular access and thus stored vaccine, may be.

* they may only trap a sett for two nights.

... and then the bit which came as a shock - even to us. Tender and payment, we understand is per sett - whether it has a single hole or happens to be one of these huge earthworks with 50. (And as 'someone else' is doing the survey, whether it is in fact occupied by a badger at all ?) It is certainly not 'per badger' vaccinated. Thus after the two nights (and six hours of daylight) and then the double hike to inspect and return with the 3 ft. hyperdermic laden with vaccine, even if there is only one badger caught out of a potential group of 10 or 20, they are 'timed out'. That's it. Job done and away they go. Leaving how many?

Our comment includes the phrase: "who on earth dreamt this up".


We would suggest, with the greatest respect as ever, 'someone' who doesn't have to account for another shed load of taxpayer's cash which may be spent 'to no good effect' - again.

'Someone' who is happy to blow smoke in the eyes of the gullible public that 'something' is being done by 'someone' who cares not one fig about the health and welfare of badgers.

A 'someone' who quite has happily overseen the slaughter of 255,963 cattle since the moratorium on infected badger control was purchased for £1m in 1997. (To put that in context, the previous 12 year block which had some semblance of well targeted infected badger control, saw 24,556 cattle slaughtered)

A 'someone' who is totally unconcerned about the overspill of badger-TB into numerous other species, to the extent that data is selectively sifted and support antemortem tests refused.


And 'someone' who is presently counting votes.

Defra short of cash? Nah ..

As the Badger Vaccine Deployment Project stutters along - or not, another £630,000 of taxpayer's money bites the dust. Defra have commissioned a few universities to ask what farmers think of vaccinating badgers.

"The social science study has been funded for four years in the first instance and will assess the level of farmer confidence in the use of vaccination before, during and after vaccine deployment. It will also identify motivators and barriers that could influence the future use of TB vaccines. The research is being funded with a grant of just over £630,000 from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)."

Online site farminguk has the story.

Defra has no spare cash (we're told). They are certainly reluctant to spend much on PCR machines - even made-in-Britian ones. Postmortems and TB transmission opportunities for newly diagnosed species are limited or nonexistant due to that paucity of cash, we understand. And staff (veterinary, if not managerial) are demoralised even after being launched into a series of bongo drum playing 'bonding jollies' at the taxpayer's expense. But our delightful Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are able to dig deep enough to fund University budgets for this garbage 'fascinating piece of longtitudinal social science research'.

"This is a fascinating piece of longitudinal social science research. It has real academic value and will be useful to both the farming industry and to policy makers."

Never underestimate the ability of bureaurocrats to spend your money.